When Geordi cries, do his tears and the VISOR electrocute him?

[Trekker4747]

I guess I've always taken "electrocute" to simply mean someone getting a good dose of electricity sent through their system but doesn't always have to result in death. Checking into many on-line dictionary definitions the "death" aspect seems to be a major part of it but some do also say "to injure or kill..." I'd say it's a word that's been too harshly confined by its definition and certainly can be used more openly as to mean just to get a severe shock. Which, again, is how I always used it. I mean people have touched live wires and such, gotten electrocuted and died but where revived by medical techniques. So.... is that person then only "shocked."?

Same thing with your drowning example, people have drowned and died but were revived by medical techniques. I'd still say they drowned but ended up surviving.

 

[Tosk]

I mean people have touched live wires and such, gotten electrocuted and died but where revived by medical techniques. So.... is that person then only "shocked."?

You know that's not how it works. That person was electrocuted and then revived. The electrocution still happened, regardless of what came later. If they never died, then it's not electrocution.

It's pretty straightforward. It means to kill by electricity. Just because you (and a lot of other people) used it differently doesn't make it legit. After all, people say vunerable and aks all the time, too.

 

[Trekker4747]

Just because you (and a lot of other people) used it differently doesn't make it legit.

Actually, I believe that's how language evolves. I mean, what does "gay" mean and what does the pejorative term starting with "f" for a homosexual mean?

It means happy and a term for a cigarette, respectively. But language changed and evolved over time that now those two words mean things very different.

"Computer" when it first came around simply meant a person who computes, then it went to mean mechanical machines that did computations and today, obviously, it refers to the electronic device.

Words change, and can mean different things, and I argue that to be "electrocuted" doesn't necessarily have to only mean death.

 

[WarpCore]

Just because you (and a lot of other people) used it differently doesn't make it legit.

Actually, I believe that's how language evolves. I mean, what does "gay" mean and what does the pejorative term starting with "f" for a homosexual mean?

It means happy and a term for a cigarette, respectively. But language changed and evolved over time that now those two words mean things very different.

"Computer" when it first came around simply meant a person who computes, then it went to mean mechanical machines that did computations and today, obviously, it refers to the electronic device.

Words change, and can mean different things, and I argue that to be "electrocuted" doesn't necessarily have to only mean death.

You should keep looking for examples imo. Many words have multiple meanings dependent on context, but few have meanings that are contradictory. Both your examples are definitions that still remain valid, while offensive to some, after the new ones were defined. A "computer" is still all of those things, and some of the meanings are just considered archaic. What you're trying to say is that the terms "patient" and "corpse" are synonymous under fairly common circumstances. They are not.

Same thing with your drowning example, people have drowned and died but were revived by medical techniques. I'd still say they drowned but ended up surviving.

So you see the parallel? They had to die for it to be a proper drowning. In the same sense, a person has to die (even if they're brought back after) for there to be a proper electrocution. Otherwise those cases are just "had trouble breathing under water/liquid" and "was shocked".

I guess I've always taken "electrocute" to simply mean someone getting a good dose of electricity sent through their system but doesn't always have to result in death.

BTW, worth adding... Electrocution does not always require a large amount of voltage or current. If it travels through the right parts of the body, 50-70 milliamps is enough to throw the heart out of rhythm causing death within minutes if a defibrillator isn't available quickly. Takes more isolated externally of the torso to burn flesh and such causing the person to rot from the inside out for a week before eventually dying from infection, but either would be pretty painful and horrible ways to go.

 

[Tosk]

Just because you (and a lot of other people) used it differently doesn't make it legit.

Actually, I believe that's how language evolves.

Quite right. As of now though, doesn't "electrocute" have a defined, specific meaning?

Anyway, I never meant to get into a thing about it. Naturally, you can use the word correctly or not as you see fit, it’s up to you.

 

[Holdfast]

Just to add to this random tangent (given this is a funny thread anyway, I doubt that drifting slightly OT is much of an issue to anyone), I can tell you that any number of health professionals have colloquially used electrocute to mean "received a serious electric shock", in just the way that Trekker and 005 have. I'm sure I've done it myself too, actually, in an occasional lapse. They know that intellectually that they're wrong to do so, of course (and wouldn't use it in a more formal context or in clinical notes or anything like that) but it is part of the general vernacular even in educated circles. It's slipshod language, but unsurprising, given that it trips off the tongue easier than "received an electric shock" (or even clunkier, "got electric shocked").

Naturally, it's still good to know that it's incorrect usage in a strict sense.

 

[sevenstars]

Maybe it's that steady stream of little electric shocks that keeps Geordi peaceful and smiling.

 

[Mojochi]

Something that always kind of bugged me. The name VISOR, which I've since learned is actually an acronym for "Visual Instrument & Sensory Organ Replacement". Kind of a misnomer when used as a word, because this below is a visor, which protects vision from something

& it gets me thinking that Geordi's visor actually has nothing to do with his eyes, such that he'd need to wear it over them. For example, if someone wanted to custom fit it to wear over their forehead, like a head band, or maybe around their neck, like a necklace or collar, it would work just the same, because it's just a sensory device transmitting to the inputs on his temples. It might have been harder to knock off, if it had been a headband or collar

 

[Trekker4747]

Making it something that goes over his eyes may have been a cosmetic thing and to give him the right POV in his vision. If it were a headband or a pendant the POV of his vision would be off.

 

[Mojochi]

Making it something that goes over his eyes may have been a cosmetic thing and to give him the right POV in his vision. If it were a headband or a pendant the POV of his vision would be off.

Yeah, but how would he know the difference? He's been blind his whole life. So how would it matter if he was seeing the universe from an inch or so farther up his skull?

 

[Trekker4747]

It probably wouldn't but why make his already hard to interpret vision that much more of a challenge? The VISOR covered the entire viewing area for the average humanoid and was at the right place for a humanoid (since all humanoid aliens we've seen throughout Trek have had their eyes in the same place) why make his vision any different than it is for everyone else, at least moreso than it already is?

(And I maintain that it makes no sense the VISOR had to scan the ENTIRE EM-spectrum when it could've been set to scan the visible light area (or at least be adjustable so Geordi could see other areas if he wanted to) the same way my radio only scans the EM spectrum where radio frequencies are.)

Also, as I implied, the VISOR may have also been partly an aesthetic piece of equipment too. Though things like vanity, shame, and looking down at others for physical differences is no longer likely the case in the 24c there were still some times where Geordi seemed to realize that people seeing his "real eyes" made people uncomfortable, the VISOR covering his eyes could have been a cosmetic thing. It's also possible whatever blindness condition Geordi had required the VISOR to cover his eyes to protect them, much the same reason blind people wear sunglasses.

Blind people's eyesight obviously can't be bothered by sunlight but the bright sun can STILL cause them pain and some harm and without the ability to see they wouldn't be able to know when to blink, squint or look away to protect them. It wouldn't harm eyesight, obviously, but the eyes could still get burned by the bright sun which would lead to pain, infection and likely necessitate the removal of the eye which would obviously be a burden mentally, physically and emotionally on the person, not to mention protect the eyes from debris and other objects one may encounter.

 

[Mojochi]

You have thought through this way more than me lol

I did think of a new name that would be less of a misnomer

Sensory Transmitter Optical Replacement Equipment. We'll call it a S.T.O.R.E

Maybe not

 

[T'Girl]

Making it something that goes over his eyes may have been a cosmetic thing and to give him the right POV in his vision.

Would also result in people looking Geordi "in the eye" when they speak to him. If the visor were around his forehead, it would be like someone speaking to one of us, while staring at our upper lip.

(Or cleavage)

 

[Trekker4747]

Making it something that goes over his eyes may have been a cosmetic thing and to give him the right POV in his vision.

Would also result in people looking Geordi "in the eye" when they speak to him. If the visor were around his forehead, it would be like someone speaking to one of us, while staring at our upper lip.

(Or cleavage)

Very true.

But I stare at cleavage no matter what, it cannot be helped.